Winter Duatholon-strength and FTP - Page 3

I am not a bad subject either. I have a good year of data as well. I can probably dig up my old power quest for the 2 busy thread last year where I was posting some data as well. I think I was probably in the low 260s as far as FTP and I am thinking I am somewhere in the low 290s currently. And I have been lifting pretty steady all year.

But I would not expect to see that kind of power gain this year anyway since the quick gains from just improving the quality of my workouts has been realized. I am not sure how much low hanging fruit is left without increasing quantity, and that is where your point about resistance training is well taken. To the extent every minute power lifting is arguably a minute I could be adding to my CTL, there is a trade off. A true comparision would need a true control, with one subject cycling 8 hours a week with high quality time, and another riding about 5.5 hours high quality and lifting 2.5. There is no question that my deadlifting will improve more than the cycling-only control's deadlifting

IOW, I don't think that I will be at 320 FTP next year on this program (but I am not sure I would get there even if I cycled 8 hours a week and dropped the lifting). For me, if I dropped resistance training, I would lose some of the motivation I get by varying the workouts, and the weight redistribution (change in physique) would bum me out a lot.

Definitely sticks at that height...

-js

I'm presuming not purposely, but you left out the "middle class" of riders, of which I think must of us contributing to this forum are - the weekend warrior/amateur racer (Cat. 3-5), 8-12hr/week guys/gals. IMO, even we can benefit from some multi-joint, lower body lifting each week (1-2hrs/week), and especially for those of us over 40yo. Not necessarily for the increased strength aspect but moreso to mitigate age-related muscle loss and increase core strength. Let me reiterate, this is my opinion and I speak from my own personal anecdotal evidence...

I agree with both your points above and is the reason I wanted to approach these goals separately not simultaneously. Doing both at the same time will more than likely lead you to failure.

Part 1 -> Focus on weight lifting and bulking and get to 200lbs lean mass and deadlift the 300lbs. During this time continue to ride but mostly endurance miles once or twice a week.

Part 2 -> Increase the number of days to cycling and switch the weight training to more of the finishing stage where I need to loose the body fat % which means set of 20 or higher at lower weight. This would be the ideal time to try and hit your highest watts.

I was expecting to need more time than March 15 to get this all done. If it takes longer than March 15 I will continue on.

-js

PS Picking March 15th is also an unlucky day as that is when corporate taxes are due.

I do agree overall that you probably have a better chance of success at hitting both goals but the time period is the big issue.

I understand CTL but I had tons of CTL last year and I can not say that CTL directly leads to gains in power. There must be a point that the more CTL you add the less gain you will see till it makes no difference at all.

-js

I'm not sure I agree that "middle class" (in terms of degree of cycling specific fitness), 8-12hr/wk, and Cat 3-5 belong in the same sentence. 8-12 hr/wk seems pretty serious to me for someone who works a day job, and could lead to a pretty high state of training if done right. See the "How far on 8hr/wk" thread in the power forum for more discussion.

In any case, for the "middle class" of riders who have a little more time to squeeze out of the schedule, there's still the decision of what makes for better use of that time. If they want to move to a higher class of cycling, then spending that extra time cycling (over lifting) will definitely take them further. If they don't have more time to spend, then they're sacrificing specific cycling training in order to lift, so..... double-whammy.

Benefit from a cycling perspective, or a general health perspective? When you read comments here that poo-poo lifting, they're typically written from a cycling perspective, as expected in a cycling training forum. For other goals, like preventing bone loss for example, I think that should be stated up front (as in this thread).

Disagreement? No problem. I believe I'm in the "middle class" - in the sense that I am the rider characterized with the aforementioned attributes. I am not highly trained, nor am I untrained. I'm "middle" trained - it's all relative. I used the term "middle class" to describe that class not represented in Dave's post. Furthermore, what's considered "highly trained" for one person may only be "middle class" for another such is the individualistic nature of adaptation and resultant fitness.

For ME, I derive a cycling benefit from weekly moderate multi-joint lifting - I view it the same as doing core work. Curious to know your opinion on core work and its benefits/detriment to cycling performance.

Well Ric Stern's loose definition of "trained" in terms of the point where weight training will not improve fitness:
Seems to include a fair amount of the middle class you refer to. Will weight training help a Cat 5 cyclist who can't hang with the group. Perhaps, but I'd still argue that endurance training and time on the bike will help them even more.

Bottom line, if you can lift your body weight walking up a flight of stairs you have more than enough strength for endurance cycling. Sure if you're training for 200 meter match sprints or kilos that's a different story and that may be your gig Tony, but for most of the folks here time on the bike is going to help more than time in the weight room.

I've got nothing against folks who want to lift, I spend a fair amount of time rock climbing, mountaineering and backcountry skiing. They're activities I'll never quit doing and it costs me time and energy that could be used on the bike. I don't intend to quit them anytime soon but I don't think for a second they'll improve my cycling regardless of the core strength, or flexibility benefits.

-Dave

Sure, but just as there's a large space between untrained and highly trained, there is also a large space between a sedentary individual (untrained) and someone who 'merely' trains 8-12 hr/wk. If I were going to classify 'somewhat trained' or 'moderately trained' it would be in the realm of 2-4 hr/wk, where they are going to blow the doors off an untrained person, but are probably not yet ready to race.

Think about it this way: someone who can even finish with the pack of a Cat 5 race is probably in the top .1% of the population in cycling ability. That's way closer to highly trained than untrained.

Same as everything else -- specificity rules. That is, while there may be some benefit to doing an activity, it's less beneficial than doing a more specific training activity. For "middle class" cyclists who have limited training time, their time would be better spent cycling. For highly trained cyclists who are limited by recovery, their recoverable training load would be better spent cycling. For folks who generally just want to look good and feel healthy, go ask the question on WebMD.com.

Core work makes it easier for me to put on my cycling shoes when I'm sitting on the floor... Other than that I've never encountered an issue where muscles between my pelvis and shoulders (other than lower back) have screamed "you need to be stronger. If you class the heart as a muscle I'd go for a stronger one of those though

But the only time I've ever encountered abdominal distress purely through effort, it resulted in me yacking my breakfast all over the finish line at the end of a couple of time trials some time in the early to mid 1990's... Good times, good times...

Most that know me in this community know that I am a big believer in specificity when it comes to winning in a particular event. I may be wrong about this and I just tried a Google search regarding Michael Phelp's training, but during the Olympics he was asked about his daily schedule. He mentioned off the cuff that his day started early with swimming and ended late with swimming. On a website forum for this discussion it listed out his training and it was all swimming and no other type of training mentioned. Specificity

I believe kopride, Jsirabella and myself all believe this to be true. That more time committed to specificity will yield better results. On my blog for the strength training series I lead off by making this type of statement in other words. In the past I have also defended ric's and other's thoughts on this principle as well because it was in the context of a person making a statement that strength training was necessary in the off season and could be applied to the pedals. I have had people look at my build and say I must be a good sprinter on the bike, but I cannot seem to apply my weightlifting background to the pedals. For me that just has not happened despite the outward appearance of my leg musclature. I never believe it could because I already know that explosive strength and power output are not the same.

I do however hold this personal opinion, but do not apply it to everyone based on daily living observations. That is a personal matter for each as to what and how each chooses to live.

A couple of observations:

• My grandparents were very active in their 60's staying busy and exercising, but at some point they stopped walking and started sitting more in their house. It was amazing how fast their musclature atrophied to the point they almost became crippled from the lack of movement. They could not do any regular duties that involved lifting heavier household objects. I was amazed at how fast their physical structures deteriorated.

• Past coworkers or associates that do nothing more than sit in the office all day have atrophied in the same manner regardless of age. I have heard them complain about muscular soreness from raking leaves or other low intensity household duties. If I rake leaves (and my yard is not small) I absolutely feel no muscular stress because my body is trained well above that state. It is hard for me to comprehend such physical weakness that a daily chore would cause DOMS. Amazing, but I feel no pity for their complaint.

On the opposite side of the view, I have been training with weights for over 25 years, but avoided cardio as much as possible in order to gain lean mass (specificity). I was warned by my doctor about my blood pressure in 2004 because I was trying to break the 200 lb. bodyweight limit. I was at 190 lbs and had the outward appearance of looking fit because of the lifting, but internally I was a mess and I knew it. Instead of being like most and accepting the medication plan that the doctor wanted to prescribe I told him I would take the matter into my own hands rather than popping pills everyday. So in 2004 I started cycling, reduced my daily calorie intake, stopped eating over a pound of red meat daily and in a very short period I began to feel more balanced in daily living. Not having as much strength as in the old day of specific lifting, but was starting to feel more mobile and yet my strength level is still above most males in my age group. I feel better in daily living with this balance of strength and with mobility.

Hopefully this thread will not be a negative influence on those who might get confused by what a few of us are saying. I think most of us will agree on specificity as it applies to a particular event and the rest (competitive or not) of us that desire to be a bit more balanced across the board.

After puberty males are on a lifelong downward spiral with declining hormone levels, but resistance training does a good job in fighting declining hormone levels as well as declining bone density. I want to personally take as much lean mass into my elderly years as possible. To me this is about fighting the good fight for those years in a balanced manner. Currently at 45 I feel pretty good about the effort and even standing near the average non-training 20 to 30 year old male I still look more healthy. It is also funny when I go to the doctor and have to fill out their paper work they return it to me and say I left the section of medication used blank and that I need to fill it out.

Surprise!!....I'm not on medication like most men of my age.

__________________
My Blog

I know it may sound a bit against all logic but I have issues with the standards that have been set for what a person should eat and the bodyweight should be based upon height and body type. If I was listen to these doctors I would be 150lbs and eating more veggies than a starved rabbit. I would pretty much be see through.

I understand that there have been all these studies how the people who live these type of lifestyles live longer and healthier than others. But if I was to look like them and live like them I would not want to live that long. I have seen many people who live way into their 80s (including my Dad) and he will tell you straight that it really may not be worth the extra years. My father would walk everyday, eat well and went to doctors constantly. Now at 84 he can barely make it out of the house. I am not really sure if the human body was really intended to go that long under any conditions.

I also do not find the cardio bunny, size 0 bodies that good to look at. In NYC we have so many people into cardio/running and all their bodies are what I call "shotgun" bodies like "shotgun" apartments where you can shoot a gun from one of the apartment to the other and not hit a wall. Their bodies pretty much are straight lines with no curves. They need to eat and put a little tone.

Enough rant but I will never be the gold standard when it comes to these set standards and I do not mind. I will leave that to the people of Okinawa...

-js

I knew lots of cyclists that tried the creatine supplements when they were marketed back in the mid 90's. None of them seemed to mystically improve faster than those who didn't take the stuff - following many months and much money. Whether it was conincidence or not, a few of my friends started having kidney problems around that time too...

I agree 100%
According to those charts I am supposed to be like 125 pounds.

I had a friend in college that was naturally a muscular guy without even trying hard. He was on scholarship in the ROTC program and was eventually denied entry into the military because of his weight based on a chart. They did not even consider his lean mass, strength or endurance levels. I don't know if that was 100% true, but he stated that they judged him completely on the chart. Perhaps there was something else about him that he was embarassed to disclose about why he was kicked out of the program.

__________________
My Blog

Quote:

Originally Posted by kopride Yeah, between the bad breath from being in near Ketosis almost constantly, and the grocery bills, my wife finally went on a bedroom strike and my 2 year involvment with a fairly strict Atkins/protein diet ended.

My brother was on an Atkin's-inspired regime and yeah, his breath was not so pleasant at the time.

In the first edition of this book, the author says that strength-training athletes, even body-builders who aren't necessarily so much endurance athletes, don't need nearly as much protein as they often take in. Building muscle apparently doesn't require as much protein as many people seem to think. I'm not picking on you or Felt (who mentioned the "protein overdose diet", so to speak), just pointing out what she says about proper guidelines. However, I understand that bulking up, if that's what you are trying to do, will require extra calories. No question about that.

The flip side of this is that, according to her, for you guys splitting your time between the gym and the bike, for endurance athletes into some moderately intense training (think SST and threshold work) and endurance athletes trying to lose weight, protein demands are higher than the recommended daily amount for sedentary people, about 20-100% higher in fact. I am referring to the actual amounts in grams (or for Felt's old diet, kilos ), not the % with respect to other nutrients.